To review: There is a First Amendment right not only to free speech, but also to anonymous speech, and especially to anonymous political speech. That has never been seriously doubted in our history, and is deeply entrenched in Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (“Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”)
Someone please these jackboots:
Police detectives seeking the identities of bloggers who criticized McAlester [Oklahoma] officials on an online message board delivered a subpoena to the site’s operator, who says he won’t cooperate with investigators.
Two police detectives delivered the subpoena on Aug. 12 to Harold King, who operates the Web site McAlester Watercooler. The subpoena orders King to provide details by Aug. 16 on 35 bloggers posting under pseudonyms on King’s site.
…
King said he researched posts under those pseudonyms and found one common denominator: All had written critically about District Attorney Jim Miller. Miller said by telephone: “I can’t comment on any investigation, and whether one’s going on or not.”
Read that last sentence again: The disgruntled D.A. cannot say whether an investigation is going on or not? Absolutely unacceptable. If there isn’t an investigation, then why is he issuing subpoenas? Doesn’t a subpoena presume an investigation of some kind? Or do district attorneys just decide randomly to subpoena people’s private records for sport on rainy Sunday afternoons instead of hitting the back nine at the local country club?
Again: No crime has been alleged, no civil lawsuit has been filed. Some law-abiding citizens anonymously posted some political comments that some thin-skinned politicians didn’t like. That’s all that happened, and that’s apparently all it takes for a moral defective district attorney with an itchy subpoena finger to see fit to ride roughshod over the First Amendment. The mind reels.
If Miller is abusing his authority by issuing subpoenas to get back at uppity citizens — which seems clearly to be the case — then he should not only be removed from office but also disbarred. In any event, this much is certain: It is definitely time for an investigation — but one of Miller, not one by Miller.
UPDATE: Miller (the D.A.) has filed a complaint against King (the blogger) for “criminal libel,” an archaic law that is usually declared unconstitutional whenever it is used (see, e.g., Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)). King is considering filing a reciprocal action against Miller with the state attorney general. Between McIntyre, New York Times v. Sullivan (public figures must show actual malice) and the Communications Decency Act (bloggers not liable for comments made by others), it’s fairly obvious that the D.A. is on an unethical and likely illegal witch hunt. (Via C&F.)
Previously:
–Linkfest: First Amendment Abuses (Updated here.)
–Big Viacom is Watching You Watching YouTube (Updated here.)
–Suddenly Privacy Matters?
1 response so far ↓
Link Crime // Aug 15, 2008 at 3:22 am
Did District Attorney Jim Bob Miller File A Frivolous Criminal Complaint Against Blogger?…
District Attorney Jim Bob Miller of McAlester, Oklahoma has filed a criminal complaint against his long-time critic, Harold King. King operates a web forum where members of the public may post comments. Some of the comments were critical of Attorney Mi…